(December 29, 2010 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Saying DNA arose by natural means is evidence that DNA can arise by natural means is circular reasoning. We have never observed any information to arise by natural means, so to say DNA can is a matter of blind faith, not scientific.No, DNA is proof that information can rise by natural means, yes it's kinda is circular logic, but it's backed by the fact that DNA is information and has a mechanism for change and reproduction so it's information that rises by natural means, arguing that DNA is not natural is arguing that Life and Biology is Artificial
Quote:No i wouldn't say that, i know it's artificial because i know art is an a artificial object and i know that artificial objects are not objects done by nature, or to be short "This piece of art is man-made therefore it's artificial"
More circular reasoning, if at first you do not know people created the art then how do you know it is artificial? So you can’t use the fact it is artificial to say you know people created it because we only call things artificial because we know people created them. Rather you would say, “This piece of art contains information, therefore it arose from a mental source.”
Quote:It would destroy the two because you could never distinguish between the man-made and the natural. Nature does not always give us the “hows”, it doesn’t tell us how cars were built, or houses, or computers.Because cars houses and computers are artificial, still information isn't dependent on a mental source, since DNA exists it's natural and it's a fact
Quote:So you only know they are that old because a TV show told you they were that old?No i just don't remember the exact information, just the final information
Besides you're using the watchmaker Argument to prove your point which is a non-sequitur
